State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

[SleuthinNC]

Actually the fact that the france phone was connecting to a local IP Phone cluster would lead me to believe it was setup to remotely access his test network meaning the lab and phones on his desk in his office.

 

[JiminWilton]

I am not convinced that what I smell is cordite. Smells more like beef stew simmering...

 

[cityslick]

Why would anyone have a need to know how to completely clean up after himself but not for criminal reasons? The way I see it, but for a crime, no one would have known about any of this. The encryption, the wiping of discs. Maybe I'm not understanding all this technical stuff correctly. But for the commission of a crime, there would have been no reason to have a need to encrypt or wipe anything, right?

Any smart person is going to completely wipe data when they are going to discard stuff.

Just answering your question as to why a person would completely clean a data (hard drive) device.

 

[snowshuze]

Court done for the day.

 

[BrownRice]

Jury released for the day!

 

[LyndyLoo]

No further witnesses today..Ohhh Geesh!!

Did anyone else see Brad..He actually appeared abit embarrassed after that last witness..Me think he know that Mr. Fry knows what he did...Brad is the HE

 

[BrownRice]

I am not convinced that what I smell is cordite. Smells more like beef stew simmering...

And what does that mean?

 

[gbay]

Actually the fact that the france phone was connecting to a local IP Phone cluster would lead me to believe it was setup to remotely access his test network meaning the lab and phones on his desk in his office.

Hopefully we will have someone tesify about this later.

 

[gracielee]

Just an FYI, it may not be uncommon due to his job responsibilities to occasionaly wipe data off of drives. I don't know if it was or not, just throwing it out there.

Wasn't that asked of this witness? I thought he replied 'he found it strange' and 'something he hadn't been asked before in his job.' I think these sorts of things were the responsiblity of this guy testifying, 'security systems'. But not one of Brad's responsiblities. I understand that when computers are turned in they are wiped clean. But I would assume that would be the responsiblity of the security dept. not Brad Coopers dept.? I know prior to my husband retiring, he on occasion got a new computer at work. But it wasn't his responsibility to wipe clean the old one prior to turning it in.

And I can't help it, I'm terribly troubled by the extent of spying, snooping, and intrusion into the life of nancy cooper. I don't care if he was her husband, he had no right to spy on her every move. She didn't spy on him, and he was the proven cheater and liar. And he had no right to take her name off any and all assets IMO. As a woman, this just appalls me to no end. That in the year 2008, Nancy Cooper had no rights as a woman. She was treated like a possession. this is a really sore spot with me. Something from a long LONG time ago. Being trapped, entrapped, complete and utter control over another human being is not right. MOO

 

[Albert]

Actually the fact that the france phone was connecting to a local IP Phone cluster would lead me to believe it was setup to remotely access his test network meaning the lab and phones on his desk in his office.

Not really. There could be several CallManager clusters within an enterprise as each CallManager has a maximum number of phones that it can support. I believe Cisco has many more employees than what can be serviced by a single CallManager cluster. The DID number in France, registered to a CallManager cluster in France, simply had a translation pattern assigned that basically transforms the dialed digits. This transformed digit string would then route to a phone connected to another CallManager cluster, in this case a lab cluster in RTP.

 

[FullDisclosure]

I am not convinced that what I smell is cordite. Smells more like beef stew simmering...

Are you calling me a cow?

 

[SleuthinNC]

My husband (works at Cisco) is in Germany now and he calls me from his computer and it shows as his Cisco local office number on my phone.

That's true as long as you have network that works. It really doesn't make sense for that number to be a DID number unless somebody locally was calling it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Let me put it this way: Cisco uses the same software my company uses on employee laptops. The level of security is serious. We're talking 'paranoid' level of security. Multiple pieces of software to detect if someone accesses the computer or the network, multiple layers to protect data. A random person could not get into a Cisco laptop easily. NO WAY. They would have to have ALL the credentials to do so. And then, to get on a Cisco network, they'd need another set of permissions/passwords AND a physical RSA keyfob that displays a special code that changes every 60 seconds. That code becomes part of a password to log onto the network. It literally is never the same twice. That code changes EVERY 60 seconds.

 

[cityslick]

I have common sense, thank you. I think those of us who want more evidence (proof is not the word I used) are using common sense. (I'm not talking about the ones who pop in all emotional and slam people and leave, I'm talking about those of us who are following the case.) I'm not expecting an eye witness or a confession. If the forensic bug guy (or the bugs themselves) had shown that Nancy had to have been dead and dumped before 6:40 that would have gotten me off the fence. If the State can prove that the 6:40 am call was spoofed, I'm off the fence.

I know that statistically speaking Brad probably did this. But I would never send a man to prison for life based on what I've seen so far. I know there is more to be revealed. If Brad did it, I hope they can provide evidence. That is how I use MY common sense.

This was kind of my post last night. If the state had the bug guy say 'in my expert opinion, I'm fairly confident larvae eggs were laid on the body prior to 6am' that would be pretty substantial to me and I'd buy that as hard proof. But he didn't say that. He said he had no confidence in his estimate due to poor quality of samples.

If the geologist had said 'this type of mica is consistent, chemically or otherwise with the crime scene and I've tested compared numerous sites in Wake county, then that would be substantial'. But she didn't say that either.

I don't understand why it's being referred to as 'having common sense' when we don't have a strong bias either way in this case, simply because it's not how you think.

 

[SleuthyGal]

That's true as long as you have network that works. It really doesn't make sense for that number to be a DID number unless somebody locally was calling it.

French lover of Brad's could place call to that Paris DID phone number for FREE and the call would go to Brad and she would not pay long distance charges.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Hopefully we will have someone tesify about this later.

I totally retract my previous statement. Forgot the number was a DID number and the cluster it was attached to was Alpha network not his own cluster.

 

[gracielee]

It is certainly a good practice to wipe a hard drive to DoD level before disposing of it. Don't know if that was what he was up to or not.

Have they given the evidence of his spying, and what he saw? That could be very harmful to the defense.

I don't know what the spying all entailed, but the listening in on phone calls and intercepting every private email correspondence of Nancy's is enough to rip me up. Again, IMO

 

[sunshine05]

If I was a juror, I'm not sure what my "takeaway" would have been from the Cisco guy. It was pretty confusing and hard to follow. It would be helpful if the prosecution could get straight to the point so we know what it is we're supposed to be discovering from this witness. But I'll admit I missed some of it. Can anyone summarize both sides, please? Was there any evidence presented?

 

[justcuriousnc]

Now for the request for PGP software and DBAN.

It appears Brad wanted to ENCRYPT his Outlook email. He likely wanted to do this so he could have secret conversations via email that no one else could get to and he would be sure nothing had been tampered with.

He wanted DBAN so he could (eventually) completely wipe the hard drive on his computer. And by 'wipe,' I mean destroy every little bit of data so thoroughly that NO ONE, not even Russian spies, could ever retrieve information from his computer. That's what they mean by "DOD standards." It so completely cleans off a hard drive that it's good enough for the U.S. Dept of Defense to use. That's the standard the DOD set for themselves and any secure computer in the govt. Brad wanted THAT level of cleaning his hard drive.

I read the chat exchange differently ..
1 - he asked for encryption SW - the recommended one was for exchange only and he wanted something for the entire PC
2 - upon being asked what he was trying to do he said 'disk wipe'
3 - based on disk wipe the security guy offered DBAN to Brad (he did not ask by name).


to me the point of wanting to totally destroy anything on the PC (eg. disk wipe at DoD level) is damaging - considering they described Brad's job as Voice technology (not disposing of equipment after the lease expires).

 

[LyndyLoo]

Hopefully we will have someone tesify about this later.

Not sure if you were here for that testimony about the call logs..but the witness was from AT&T not an expert..only explained the terms on the logs and what they meant...But there was all sorts of things on them that he could NOT explain...I happen to think with this Cisco witness and most likely FBI expert..it will be shown all these remote calls will get exposed..there was alot of numbers on that log..but the jury needs specifics...

I do think Brad's call from Nancy (from home) at 640AM on July 12th will be shown to be initiated remotely..somehow and thus bottomline..Brad's alibi is totally blown..never mind the circumstances surround the whole thing..Why would he lie about that call?? To create an alibi..no more no less:rocker: